The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Protecting dangerous criminals from the public.

I'm just interested to see what others think on this point.

Some criminals have to be protected from the public because the public would harm or even kill them is that right? Despite what they have done, how can people just ignore the fact that there are people out there threatening to kill them! The people threatening are obviously a danger, they are threatening to kill, I may be wrong in this but, that's a crime in itself. They want to take the law in to their own hands breaking the law as it stands.
I don't think pedophiles and murderers should be protected, the news of someone like Mark. Bridger or other well publicised sickos being beaten in the street by locals wouldn't make me bat an eyelid. Of course it depends on the severity of their crimes. But then you have the question of where you draw the line on who deserves a right good battering.
Original post by JennaEmBee
I don't think pedophiles and murderers should be protected, the news of someone like Mark. Bridger or other well publicised sickos being beaten in the street by locals wouldn't make me bat an eyelid. Of course it depends on the severity of their crimes. But then you have the question of where you draw the line on who deserves a right good battering.


Totally agree, Paedophilia and Murder is completely unacceptable, and in no way should the people who commit such deeds be shielded from the public.
If you break a crime and are found guilty then the Crown and Courts deal with the punishment. Once that punishment has been 'served' then they are back to being members of the public as far as I am concerned. I may still find the acts they committed abhorrent or shocking but they have 'done their time' as it were.
Original post by JennaEmBee
I don't think pedophiles and murderers should be protected, the news of someone like Mark. Bridger or other well publicised sickos being beaten in the street by locals wouldn't make me bat an eyelid. Of course it depends on the severity of their crimes. But then you have the question of where you draw the line on who deserves a right good battering.


What if it then turned out they were innocent?

*****

If we were to allow this, it would be better to just bring back the death penalty, and have the state do it. There is no real moral difference.
I think that people who advocate (or allow to happen) violence towards convicted criminals share a lot more in common with those criminals than they would like to believe.

We do not have corporal punishment here. We are above that. Of course steps should be taken to ensure that harm does not come to those who have been convicted. Society does not benefit from the peace not being kept, even only when it is a crook who will be at the receiving end.
Reply 6
Avatar for askew116
askew116
17
Original post by rainbowtrout
I'm just interested to see what others think on this point.

Some criminals have to be protected from the public because the public would harm or even kill them is that right? Despite what they have done, how can people just ignore the fact that there are people out there threatening to kill them! The people threatening are obviously a danger, they are threatening to kill, I may be wrong in this but, that's a crime in itself. They want to take the law in to their own hands breaking the law as it stands.


I agree with you OP. Those who threaten to kill murderers, paedophiles etc are doing it out of revenge, not justice.
Reply 7
Avatar for The_Duck
The_Duck
7
The justice system serves to protect and rehabiliatate, not provide meaningless revenge.
Murderers and paedophiles shouldn't be protected. The fact that a paedophile could be residing in my neighbourhood scares me. When James Bulgers' killers were let out of prison and let loose into society, it really angered me as i feel justice still hasn't been served.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 9
Avatar for Psyk
Psyk
16
I don't think I'd feel safer with crazy lynch mobs running around. We have rule of law for a reason. It would be chaos if the police turned a blind eye to people attacking or even outright murdering convicted criminals.

If you think they should be killed for what they have done, then support bringing the death penalty back. At least then there will be an actual process behind it rather than a bunch of nutters out for blood. Not that I disagree with the death penalty either.
on one hand i have no issue with rapists paedos and murderers getting a kicking - humans are violent creatures and when the blood is up - its up and very little can stop mob mentality. and reason certainly wont sway them.

So while if a convicted paedo gets his neck stretched from a lamp post id silently applaud it - what if it was a media focus like the Daily Mail or the Sun likes to run - and its the wrong person?

Thats why i feel they should be protected - not for thier sake but because its better 100 criminals walk free than one innocent goes to the gallows
Original post by HarrisxK
Totally agree, Paedophilia and Murder is completely unacceptable, and in no way should the people who commit such deeds be shielded from the public.


So they should be subject to vigilante justice and killed?
Reply 12
Avatar for Gjaykay
Gjaykay
11
It would enviably lead to the murder of innocent people, so yes I feel convinced criminals should be protected. Plus they served their punishment and were brought to justice.
Reply 13
Avatar for Mockery
Mockery
17
Imagine hooking up with and getting married to a convicted murderer/rapist who upon leaving prison acquired a change of identity!

And yet the police are making it easy for women to check on their partner's history just in case he has been responsible for partaking in domestic violence.



Double standards make no sense.
When people are saying paedophiles, living near paedophiles etc. I assume we're referring to those who are guilty of child sex offences? Not just anyone who admits to being a paedophile?

Anyhow naming them is dangerous as they may end up being innocent. I mean that disabled guy was kicked to death then set on fire because people assumed he was a paedophile.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 15
Avatar for james22
james22
16
Original post by Mockery
Imagine hooking up with and getting married to a convicted murderer/rapist who upon leaving prison acquired a change of identity!

And yet the police are making it easy for women to check on their partner's history just in case he has been responsible for partaking in domestic violence.



Double standards make no sense.


usually it is in the parole conditions that you have to declare your offence to anyone you enter a relationship with.
If you think those criminals should be beaten up, then support corporal punishment. If you think they deserve to be killed, then support the death penalty. If you think they should never be allowed to leave prison, then support the concept of "life should mean life".

It's one thing to have a strong opinion on what kind of punishments those criminals deserve - but why should ordinary members of the public be tasked with administering them, rather than it all being done formally by the state?
Reply 17
Avatar for the bear
the bear
20
Original post by JennaEmBee
I don't think pedophiles and murderers should be protected, the news of someone like Mark. Bridger or other well publicised sickos being beaten in the street by locals wouldn't make me bat an eyelid. Of course it depends on the severity of their crimes. But then you have the question of where you draw the line on who deserves a right good battering.


best give them a good hiding just in case, eh ?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you